More Data: Joe Still Ahead
MyDD: CT-Sen: New Rasmussen Poll Shows Closer Race
I'll be curious to know when the Texas branch of Nedheadism starts finding polls more "believable." My hunch is whenever there's one that shows Ned ahead. For what it's worth, Chris Bowers found this one "believable" enough to pass on ...
Lieberman: 45 (46)
Lamont: 43 (41)
Schlesinger: 6 (6)
Bowers also notes a curious discrepancy between this Rasmussen poll and the earlier Quinnipiac poll that had Joe up by 12 points:
The difference between the Q-poll and the Rasmussen poll in Connecticut is found mainly with Independents / Others. While Quinnipiac had Lieberman ahead by 20 among Independents, Rasmussen has a dead heat among Independents. There is no way to know who is more accurate.
Good point that I think deserves a bit of research. Where's Mystery Pollster when we need him? Meanwhile, Chris devolves to form with his carping about the polls being flawed for mentioning Joe as an independent. Seriously, some people could beat themselves over the head with a hammer and come out smarter for their troubles.
UPDATE: Even more data ... ARG has a tight contest, but with Joe still in the lead:
Lieberman - 44%
Lamont - 42%
Gold - 3%
Undecided - 11%
Among those that "always vote," Joe's lead grows. I'm actually a bit sceptical of the 57% support Joe has here among GOP voters. Their undecideds are a bit high, though. In the end, I think Joe gets around 65% of those votes and about 35% of the Dem votes. The real contest will be among non-affiliated voters ... and, so far, Joe owns that crosstab to the tune of 48%-38%.
Still, my prediction stands that the Texas wing of the Nedheadosphere finding polls believable will happen right around the time that a poll shows Ned in front. Funny how believability parallels affirmation sometimes.
What this business about a higher Democratic turnout than Republican? Maybe there will be, but does Chris provide a reason to suppose that it will be?
Also, supposing that the Joe/Ned contest does result in a higher Dem turnout, wouldn't that be good for the Dem challengers in the state? Shouldn't Bowers and Co. be praising Joe for staying in?
I think most Texas blogger and their readers really don't care to spend as much time on this as Greg does. The polls are believable just as they were when they showed Joe ahead by 50 points before those collapsed and he lost the primary. It's really a non-issue seeing as the same thing will happen here and already is.
Greg, while bloated paid pundits like Paul Burka ceaselessly gloat over the GOP's "fratricidal ways" since attaining majority, coming here is always a refreshing reminder that Democrats can't stand each other in the minority. After all, government power is what Democrats are all about, and without that power where is the glue?
Btw, I actually liked your old blog design better. The retro newsprint-ish, b&w zamistadt/fanzine style is still cool w/ me. Kind of like one of the later versions of the Houston Review. But we were never cool w/ anybody, so what do I know?
KT,
I also spend more time discussing the late Sen. Bill Proxmire than most other Texas blogs, as well as Nicole Kidman, Carrie Underwood, and a more historically accurate discussion of what it means to be a "Reform Democrat." Texas is but a gateway to the world, not a cocoon to withdraw into.
We'll just have to wait and see how long it is before you discover the "believability" of polls, though. I take it from your confusing statement that "the same thing will happen here and already is" is but a sign of growing acceptance of polls as they creep closer and closer to affirming your own long distance read of Connecticut voters (whether you personally devote time, pixels, bandwidth or otherwise to the matter).
John,
Beware how much solace you find. At the end of the day, there's a lot more candidate that I and KT do agree on here in the Lone Star State. I just happen to maintain the belief that more of them will be successful if they follow the example of Bill Clinton circa 1992 & 1996 than that of the DailyKOS & MyDD crowd (and their Texas wannabes).
As for the old design, it obviously has a place in my heart as it had the longest shelflife of any design this site has had. At the end of the day, so to speak, I was pretty much tired of a black & white design. As I get more and more work for web design, I think it's past due to create something that shows off what passes for talent on my part.
Now if I can just get around to finishing the templates ...
Meh ... there's always the weekend. I've got enough on my plate.
huh? Was there ever a point where I disagreed with the polls in CT? So long as they don't change their methodology, Lieberman's collapse is his own, not the polls.
I think all sides start believing polls when they start trending their way. Everyone has a little self-deception in them.
IN 2000, I was living in Connecticut, and of course Joe ran both with Gore and for senate. I felt, and others did as well, that Leiberman should have not run for Senate because he was sending the message that he was hedging his bets. That doesn't inspire confidence. We want our candidates to be for their own team 100%.
Well, I was for my team 100%, so despite my discomfort I voted for Joe Lieberman twice--once with the Gore-Lieberman ticket and once for Senate. (I hope that is the only time I will vote twice for a guy in the same election.)
Now it feels like he's pulling the same kind of stuff again. I didn't have a dog in that fight, and it wouldn't have broken my heart if Lieberman had won the primary. Ned Lamont seems like a decent enough fellow, and I feel confident that with his business background, that he'd be a reasonably pro-business senator. But again, if he had lost the primary, I wouldn't have minded either.
But now I feel like Joe is betraying the party, and I am angered that people are acting like this is some kind of purge. Incumbents occasionally lose primaries--Joe isn't the only incumbent to have lost his primary this election cycle. There have been losses on both sides of the aisle.
The decent thing to have done would have been to quietly bow out. Instead, he is seriously endangering a much-needed Democratic seat--for what? So he can continue to support the Iraq war? But now he seems to even be wavering on that! So then why IS he still running?
As I said, I don't have a dog in this fight--my only connection is that I used to be a Connecticut voter. But I'm sick of hearing about "radicals" who are "purging" the party, blah, blah, blah. The person who is taking radical action here is Joe--by not accepting the expressed desires of the voters of his party.
Gold - rofl.